Is Helicobacter pylori eradication associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A recent report has suggested an association between Helicobacter pylori eradication and the development of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We therefore assessed the incidence of GERD among comparable patients having undergone successful versus failed H. pylori eradication in a controlled trial. We also compared the H. pylori strains in the subjects that developed GERD to those that did not. METHODS: Patients with a history of proven duodenal ulcer and H. pylori infection were randomised into a H. pylori eradication study. Patients subsequently underwent gastroscopy with gastric biopsies every 3 months for 1 yr. At each visit, the presence of GERD symptoms and endoscopic esophagitis were noted, and the incidence of these variables among patients in whom H. pylori eradication was successful was compared to those in whom it was not. In a subgroup, the presence of the cagA, cagE, and vacA genotypes and of cagA antibodies were determined. RESULTS: Of 98 patients randomized into this study, 11 dropped out before determination of H. pylori eradication, leaving 87 patients with analyzable results. H. pylori eradication was successful in 63 (72%). By the end of the follow-up period, patients with GERD symptoms or endoscopic esophagitis were more prevalent in the successful than in the failed eradication group (37% [95% CI: 25-50%] vs 13% [95% CI: 3-32%], p = 0.04, 95% CI for the difference: 6-42%), as were patients with GERD symptoms alone (29% [95% CI: 18-41%] vs 8% [95% CI: 1-27%], p = 0.04, 95% CI for the difference: 4-36%) or esophagitis alone (21% [95% CI: 12-33%] vs 4% [95% CI: 0-21%], p = 0.10, 95% CI for the difference: 4-29%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed no significant association between the incidence of symptoms or esophagitis and age, gender, Quetelet index, caffeine or alcohol intake, smoking, weight change, or the presence of a hiatus hernia. There were also no differences in the prevalence of H. pylori genotypes from patients who developed GERD as compared to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient population, the incidence of new GERD-type symptoms or endoscopic esophagitis was greater in patients in whom successful eradication was achieved. This difference does not appear to be attributable to weight gain, habits, or specific H. pylori strains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".